ML17219A607
| ML17219A607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17219A606 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706050076 | |
| Download: ML17219A607 (6) | |
Text
gpS AECy (4
P
~4 0
4~
4 Cy
+~
~O W~*y4 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-67 FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE PLANT. UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 18, 1986, Florida Power
& Light Company (FP&L) proposed an amendment to delete the Core Barrel Movement Technical Specifications 3.4.11, 4.4.11.1 through 4.4. 11.3, and Bases 3/4.4. 11.
The purpose of the Technical Specifications was to verify the effectiveness of the redesigned core barrel hold-down ring by determining the core barrel movement baseline and by monitor-ing core barrel movement against the baseline.
During licensing of St. Lucie Unit 1, a problem was identified at Palisades and several other Combustion Engineering reactors, including St. Lucie Unit 1, con-cerning the core barrel hold-down ring design.
NRC addressed this problem in Section 3.9.1 of the St. Lucie Unit 1 Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated November 8, 1974, and stated in the SER, "A monitoring program will be required until either a modification has been made to the internals or data indicates the program may be discontinued."
The St. Lucie Unit 1 core barrel hold-down ring was redesigned to provide additional force to hold the core barrel in
- place, and in supplement 1 to the
- SER, NRC stated that the redesigned ring was acceptable and that the issue was resolved with incorporation of' surveillance program to monitor core barrel movement.
This NRC position was reflected in the Bases for the Core Barrel Movement Tech-nical Specification in the statement, "A modification to the required monitor-ing program may be iustified by an analysis of the data obtained and by an examination of the affected parts during the plant shutdown at the end of the first fuel cycle."
Based on a review of the existing data, FP&L believes that an adequate basis has been provided to justify deletion of the Technical Specifications.
DISCUSSION By letter dated April 22, 1977 (L-77-122),
FP&L submitted to NRC the Core Barrel Movement Baseline Report as required by Technical Specification 4.4.11.1.
The baseline was established by monitoring core support barrel motion at nomi-nal power levels of 20, 50, 80, and 100 percent of rated thermal power during 8706050076 870520 PDR ADOCK 05000335 Q
J I
r I
I f
~
f I
C T
I 1
I I.
I y )
~
C
the reactor startup test program.
As stated in the report, the core support barrel is moving less than
+ 8.8 mils in amplitude (99.7 percent confidence level) at the snubber gap level.
The baseline monitoring results provided sufficient verification of the effec-tiveness of the redesigned 'core barrel hold-down ring, in that Palisades had experienced approximately 300 mils amplitude motion as determined from the measured wear of the snubber blocks.
However, St. Lucie Unit I has continued monitoring core barrel movement in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
Results of the monitoring program have been included in the Annual Operating
- Reports, beginning in the 1977 report.
Based on a review of the results pre-sented in these nine reports, it is seen that the core barrel motion has been as expected.
Furthermore, upon identification of the thermal shield problem in Spring I983, the core barrel was
- removed, inspected
- and, where
- damaged, repaired.
During the post repair inspection, all six snubber blocks were examined and there were no indications of excessive core barrel movement.
SUMMARY
The redesigned core barrel hold-down ring has eliminated the possibility of excessive core barrel movement such as that occurred at Palisades.
This has been verified by more than nine years of core barrel movement monitoring and by physical inspection of the core barrel snubber blocks.
The staff concurs with the FPEL assessment that the purpose of the Technical Specifications has been satisfied and an adequate basis has been provided to justify deletion of the Technical Specifications 3.4.11, 4.4.11.1 throuoh 4.4.11.3, and Bases 3/4.4.11 relative to the Core Barrel Movement.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONS IDEPATION This amendment involves a change in the installation, use or surveillance of a facility component located within the restr'icted area as defined in 10
- CFP, Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b),
no environmental statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (I) there fs reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) such activities will
t tt ~
~
)
Q
~
l(
- i ( ~
.)l I l.
<) !
~
I
~
~ ~
et)
II j
~ ! l L i
,f)
I
~
~
l
~ t~
be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Oate:
Nay 20I 1987 Princi al Contributor:
agan
0 4
'i